After conducting a comprehensive literature search, the authors undertook a meta-analysis to examine the association between correctional education and reductions in recidivism, improvements in employment after release from prison, and other outcomes. The study finds that receiving correctional education while incarcerated reduces inmates' risk of recidivating and may improve their odds of obtaining employment after release from prison.

Few empirical studies have focused on women in prison. In the last few years, though, a number of studies have demonstrated that there are fundamental differences between male and female prisoners in an ever-changing penal system. Consequently, there has been a need for more comprehensive studies of female offenders for three primary reasons: (1) imperative research gaps remain to be bridged; (2) the female prison experience is not constant; and (3) prison rates for female offenders, especially minority offenders, have increased considerably in the last few years. A central goal of this book, then, is to provide a balance to the existing literature and research on female prisoners in the United States and, to an extent, abroad, focusing primarily on female offenders and using data gathered from the Wisconsin Department of Corrections. The book utilizes a comprehensive investigative approach by equating the experience of female offenders by the totality of circumstances within an historical, institutional, political, and ideological context. The critical objective is to offer an inclusive analysis of the things that are considered by female inmates to be the most significant before, during, and after their incarceration, as a way of better understanding the reasons that lead to their first incarceration as well as subsequent incarcerations. By reading this book, the reader will have a greater understanding of the many challenges facing female inmates, as well as the relationship between inmates, correctional officers and, by extension, society in general. Also provided is a series of policy recommendations throughout the book, particularly in the concluding chapter and epilogue.

Assesses the effectiveness of correctional education for both incarcerated adults and juveniles, presents the results of a survey of U.S. state correctional education directors, and offers recommendations for improving correctional education.

A theme that has persisted throughout the history of American corrections is that efforts should be made to reform offenders. In particular, at the beginning of the 1900s, the rehabilitative ideal was enthusiastically trumpeted and helped to direct the renovation of the correctional system (e.g., implementation of indeterminate sentencing, parole, probation, a separate juvenile justice system). For the next seven decades, offender treatment reigned as the dominant correctional philosophy. Then, in the early 1970s, rehabilitation suffered a precipitous reversal of fortune. The larger disruptions in American society in this era prompted a general critique of the “state run” criminal justice system. Rehabilitation was blamed by liberals for allowing the state to act coercively against offenders, and was blamed by conservatives for allowing the state to act leniently toward offenders. In this context, the death knell of rehabilitation was seemingly sounded by Robert Martinson's (1974b) influential “nothing works” essay, which reported that few treatment programs reduced recidivism. This review of evaluation studies gave legitimacy to the antitreatment sentiments of the day; it ostensibly “proved” what everyone “already knew”: Rehabilitation did not work. In the subsequent quarter century, a growing revisionist movement has questioned Martinson's portrayal of the empirical status of the effectiveness of treatment interventions. Through painstaking literature reviews, these revisionist scholars have shown that many correctional treatment programs are effective in decreasing recidivism. More recently, they have undertaken more sophisticated quantitative syntheses of an increasing body of evaluation studies through a technique called “meta-analysis.” These meta-analyses reveal that across evaluation studies, the recidivism rate is, on average, 10 percentage points lower for the treatment group than for the control group. However, this research has also suggested that some correctional interventions have no effect on offender criminality (e.g., punishment-oriented programs), while others achieve substantial reductions in recidivism (i.e., approximately 25 percent). This variation in program success has led to a search for those “principles” that distinguish effective treatment interventions from ineffective ones. There is theoretical and empirical support for the conclusion that the rehabilitation programs that achieve the greatest reductions in recidivism use cognitive-behavioral treatments, target known predictors of crime for change, and intervene mainly with high-risk offenders. “Multisystemic treatment” is a concrete example of an effective program that largely conforms to these principles. In the time ahead, it would appear prudent that correctional policy and practice be “evidence based.” Knowledgeable about the extant research, policymakers would embrace the view that rehabilitation programs, informed by the principles of effective intervention, can “work” to reduce recidivism and thus can help foster public safety. By reaffirming rehabilitation, they would also be pursuing a policy that is consistent with public opinion research showing that Americans continue to believe that offender treatment should be an integral goal of the correctional system.

Over the past four decades, the rate of incarceration in the United States has skyrocketed to unprecedented heights, both historically and in comparison to that of other developed nations. At far higher rates than the general population, those in or entering U.S. jails and prisons are prone to many health problems. This is a problem not just for them, but also for the communities from which they come and to which, in nearly all cases, they will return. Health and Incarceration is the summary of a workshop jointly sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences(NAS) Committee on Law and Justice and the Institute of Medicine(IOM) Board on Health and Select Populations in December 2012. Academics, practitioners, state officials, and nongovernmental organization representatives from the fields of healthcare, prisoner advocacy, and corrections reviewed what is known about these health issues and what appear to be the best opportunities to improve healthcare for those who are now or will be incarcerated. The workshop was designed as a roundtable with brief presentations from 16 experts and time for group discussion. Health and Incarceration reviews what is known about the health of incarcerated individuals, the healthcare they receive, and effects of incarceration on public health. This report identifies opportunities to improve healthcare for these populations and provides a platform for visions of how the world of incarceration health can be a better place.